Once again my default position of "If the WT teaches it, it is wrong" seems to be working well.
Arguments in favor of the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE
by TJ Curioso 87 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AnnOMaly
He also had no qualifications in reading the cuneiform tablets that pertain, but has made it a retirement project to acquire the necessary skills. He was criticised, when working as a professor, for being an amateur who pontificated on the tablets with no expertise in the field whatever.
That's not quite fair. He does have qualifications in Semitic languages, including Akkadian, which enables him to read cuneiform.
His big disadvantage is that he has an agenda (to support the WTS's chronology) and that he has little/no experience in (archaeo-)astronomy or with the genre of tablets he analyzes. He makes, and continues to make, serious blunders in his analyses. His intent is also to render meaningless the tablets useful in astronomically or sequentially establishing a chronology. However, he does not offer a viable, cohesive alternative using those same ancient sources but rather selects odds and ends that he believes fit his ideas, rejects the rest as being valueless or too ambiguous, and fails to see the forest for the trees.
Has he reported any sudden new evidence from this source that stands scrutiny from other experts in the field ?
His new, expanded and revised books are out now. The experts are hardly going to take him seriously.
-
slimboyfat
So much the worse for experts. I take Rolf Furuli seriously. In fact now I get practically all my furniture from IKEA.
-
Jeffro
In Against Apion Book I, Josephus states:
Nabuchodonosor besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king; after him reigned Baal, ten years; after him were judges appointed, who judged the people: Ecnibalus, the son of Baslacus, two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdeus, ten months; Abbar, the high priest, three months; Mitgonus and Gerastratus, the sons of Abdelemus, were judges six years; after whom Balatorus reigned one year; after his death they sent and fetched Merbalus from Babylon, who reigned four years; after his death they sent for his brother Hirom, who reigned twenty years. Under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia." So that the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months; for in the seventh year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar he began to besiege Tyre, and Cyrus the Persian took the kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom.
Here, Josephus incorrectly states that the siege against Tyre began in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar. It can be seen how this error is created when it is realised that his placement of the 13-year period puts the end of the siege in 586 BCE, which is the year that siege actually began. Additionally, there is no siege on Tyre mentioned in BM 21946 in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year (598 BCE), which is instead when it addresses the siege on Jerusalem. But more than that, Josephus' quote from Phonecian sources confirms that the siege against Tyre actually began in 586 BCE, during the reign of Ithobaal, who was not yet reigning in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year. Ithobal began his first regnal year in 591 BCE, and the "whole interval" from his accession in 592 BCE until Persian control of Tyre in late 539 BCE was indeed "fifty-four years besides three months".
-
AnnOMaly
LOL @ slim!
Jeffro:
Here, Josephus incorrectly states that the siege against Tyre began in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar .
Some more info about this.
From John Barclay's notes on and translation of Against Apion:
... for it was in the seventh year of the reign of Naboukodrosoros that he began to besiege Tyre, 520
---
520 The statement is an attempt to relate the Tyrian reference to the siege of Tyre (1.156) to the Judean reference to the destruction of the temple (1.154), by comparison of their relative placing in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. (Misunderstanding this clause to explain the previous statement, Latin suggests that this is the seventh year of the reign of Ithobalos; see Labow 2005: 147, n.125 and Katzenstein 1973: 328.) Taking a little support from L (which has e)pi/ where one would expect e)/tei, "year"), Gutschmid (552-55) emends the text to read "in the seventeeth year." On the basis of this and the following clause, the Tyrian record would imply a time interval of 50 years and 3 months between the destruction of the temple and the second year of Cyrus, thus matching 1.154 (see previous note). If the text is read as "seventh," the figure is reduced to 40 years and 3 months. We have noted a similar slipperiness with numbers at 1.103, though here it represents Josephus' inability to make the figures match.
[bold mine]
H.J. Katzenstein's History of Tyre (referenced above) says on p. 328,
"Josephus's statement that 'it was in the seventh year of his reign that Nabuchodonosor began the siege of Tyre' (C.Ap. I, 159) has always puzzled scholars, and much ink has been spilled over the phrase 'in the seventh year of his reign'. A Latin version quoted by Niese may provide a clue to the real meaning of this sentence. Here we read: 'septimo siquidem anno regni sui (i.e. Ithobali!) Nabuchodonoser coepit ...'. We have, therefore, to read our text as follows: 'It was in the seventh year of his (=Ethobaal's) reign' - and now comes a completion: that is in the twentieth year of his (=Nebuchadnezzar's) reign - 'that Nabuchodonosor began the siege of Tyre'. We must, consequently, assume that in a very early stage a haplography caused the text to come down to us in its present form. Our assumption is also in agreement with the information regarding the beginning of the siege and with the total sum of the different reigns of the kings and judges given by Josephus, as we have already mentioned above. Thus the long siege started in the twentieth year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. in 585 B.C.E. and came to an end ca. 572 B.C.E. (=Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-third year)."
Of course, the whole point of Josephus listing the Tyrian kings is to synchronize the Temple's 50 year desolation and "state of obscurity" with the same period in Tyrian history. From the beginning of the siege of Tyre, which happened a year or two after Jerusalem's destruction, to the end of Hiram III's 20 year reign there are some 55 years and 3 months in total (despite Josephus' math). If Cyrus "took over the [Babylonian] kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom" then we should deduct 6 years from the 55 year total which brings us to 49 years . A very close match.
Nice chart, J, btw.
-
Jeffro
AnnOMaly (quoting Barlcay):
Latin suggests that this is the seventh year of the reign of Ithobalos
Indeed, this also corresponds with what I said above and also indicated in my chart where the first regnal year of Ithobaal is 591, and his accession year is 592 BCE, placing the siege in Ithobaal's seventh year (including his accession year).
Nice chart, J, btw.
Thanks. Because I already have a fairly detailed timeline for the period, it's relatively straightforward to produce other related charts.
-
Jeffro
If Cyrus "took over the [Babylonian] kingdom in the fourteenth year of Hirom" then we should deduct 6 years from the 55 year total which brings us to 49 years. A very close match.
Maybe. But the period from Ithobaal's accession until Cyrus is a better match.
-
Fencing
It would be nice to have informative discussions about 607 without these delusional rantings every single time.
-
Jeffro
Yesterday I said:
But the period from Ithobaal's accession until Cyrus is a better match.
However, Josephus' most likely intention is indeed as stated by AnnOMaly.
-
Jeffro
On to the '40 years for Egypt'... This is taken from Ezekiel 29:1-16.
Firstly, the passage that mentions 40 years does not mention Babylon. The part of the chapter that does mention Nebuchadnezzar (verse 17 onwards) is an entirely different pronouncement separated by over 10 years (compare verses 1 and 17).
There is no evidence that Egypt was ever depopulated for a continuous 40-year period. If that happened at all, it would be more likely to occur during the Persian period.
However, there is another more likely interpretation. The rule of Pharoah Apries (Hophra) was contested by Amasis II. According to Herodotus, Amasis was raised as a commoner, and was not from a kingly line. Amasis ruled from 570 until 526 BCE. After Amasis took the throne, Apries fought against him, but was finally defeated in 567. The uncontested portion of Amasis' reign was... forty years. The reign of Amasis II was actually prosperous, but as far as Apries' lineage was concerned, Egypt was 'destroyed'.
After the reign of Amasis, Egypt soon became subject to the Persian empire (Ezekiel 29:14).
